Dominant Algae of Otsego Lake, Cooperstown, NY
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Dominant algae of Otsego Lake, Cooperstown, NY Claire Garfield 1 INTRODUCTION The diversity and frequency of algal species are important factors in determining limnological conditions because algae serve as a biological indicator of ecological stability and water quality (Bellinger and Sigee 2010). While Otsego Lake is considered a meso-oligotrophic lake, data relating to the composition of the algal standing crop in Otsego Lake would be advantageous in further determining the state of the lake (Godfrey 1977). Certain species of algae are indicative of water quality. Some groups of diatoms (Bacillariophyceae) and golden-brown algae (Chrysophyceae) grow only in relatively unpolluted water whereas cyanobacteria are more tolerant of pollution (Baker 2012). Therefore the relative abundance of any given group of algae can reveal much about the health of a lake (Bellinger and Sigee 2010).The importance of knowing the taxonomic composition of algae in Otsego Lake is augmented by the fact that many genera of cyanobacteria, often referred to as blue-green algae, produce toxins as secondary metabolites involved in storing nitrogen (Baker 2012). Many of these toxins are neuro- or hepatotoxins. Beta-Methylamino-L-alanine (BMAA), a toxin capable of being produced by multiple species of cyanobacteria has been linked to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or Lou Gehrig’s disease (Cox et al. 2003). The purpose of this study was to identify and determine the relative dominance of major planktonic algal taxa in Otsego Lake using both conventional microscopy as well as a Fluid Imaging Technnologies FlowCam®, a digital particle analyzer (FlowCam 2011). METHODS Samples were taken bi-weekly at the deepest point (50m) in Otsego Lake, TR4-C (Figure 1). Two garden hoses attached to a weighted line were lowered to a depth of 20 meters and retrieved from the bottom, yielding a single composite sample. The contents of the hoses were emptied out into a one gallon Nalgene® bottle made of high density polypropylene. 1 F.H.V. Mecklenburg Conservation Fellow, summer 2015. Present affiliation: Oneonta High School. Funding provided by the Otsego County Conservation Association. Figure 1. Map of Otsego Lake showing the sampling site for algae. Samples were preserved with Lugol’s iodine solution, which also later helped the algal cells settle out of suspension in Utermöhl chambers. The samples were stored in the cold room until further processing to prevent degradation of the algae. Samples were analyzed in two ways: one with manual counts with an inverted microscope and another with FlowCam® . Samples viewed with a microscope were inverted several times and placed in a 10-mL KC Denmark A/S Utermöhl chamber and viewed with the Zeiss Axiovert 25 inverted microscope. Cell counts were taken and recorded for the entire bottom area of the chamber. Samples viewed with FlowCam® were analyzed as follows. Approximately 3mL of undiluted sample was processed through the flow cell. FlowCam® then took images of the first 1000 particles. Those pictures were then identified and sorted into various libraries to be counted. FlowCam® was much more proficient at identifying cells on new samples; however, on older samples, the microscope proved a better method. A function and asset of using FlowCam® is that it can analyze data quickly and compensate for error involved in taking a subsample. However, using FlowCam® did pose some problems. The most common pictures taken were either of detritus or non-algal particles, and the poor quality of many pictures prevented them from being used. Algae were counted by cell as opposed to colonies; however, Microcystis and Anabaena were counted by colony and filament, respectively. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 summarizes the particle counts acquired using the microscope from samples collected from 21 April 2014 to 12 August 2015 (cell counts for most, colony counts for Microcystis and Anabaena). Similarly, Table 2 summarizes particle counts acquired using the FlowCam® on samples collected from 19 May to 12 August 2015. Here, cells are not differentiated from particles (i.e., cells). Figure 2 and 3 summarize the microscope counts and FlowCam® counts, respectively. Similarly, Figures 4 and 5 summarize the total counts using the microscope and FlowCam® during the summer of 2015 (19 May to 12 August). 4/21/14 5/7/14 6/18/14 6/21/14 7/2/14 9/7/14 9/13/14 10/27/14 11/10/14 5/19/15 6/3/15 7/2/15 8/12/15 8/27/15 9/16/15 10/6/15 10/21/15 TOTAL MICROCYSTIS 0 0 0 0 1.3 0 0 0 1.6 0.5 0.1 0 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.1 5.1 ANABAENA 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 CYCLOTELLA 0.1 0.3 0.2 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.5 1.2 11.5 0 0.2 0.1 14.6 ASTERIONELLA 7.2 5 0.2 2.4 1.4 0 0 2.6 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 19.6 FRAGILARIA 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 5.5 0.4 3.2 0.6 26.7 8 0 2.1 0.1 49.4 PINNATE DIATOMS 0.8 4.3 0 1.5 0.1 0 0.6 0.6 0 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.8 10.1 DINOBRYON 0.1 0 5.3 0.2 1.4 0.8 0.7 1 0 0 3.7 1.6 0.6 2 1.8 1.2 7.6 28 PERIDINIUM 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 CERATIUM 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.2 EUGLENA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 MOUGEOTIA 15.8 29.3 2.9 13.9 3.2 6.8 0 6.5 2.8 1.1 4 6.6 8.6 5.3 1.3 2.4 15.8 126.3 GLOEOCYSTIS 0 0 0.2 0 8.2 3.6 0 7.1 2.2 32.3 1.5 422.3 445.6 105.7 77.6 4 3.2 1113.5 PEDIASTRUM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 12.4 Table 1. The total number of cells (#/ml) (except for Microcystis and Anabaena, which were counted as colonies) counted with the microscope, by genus and date. 5/19/15 6/3/15 6/7/15 7/2/15 7/14/15 8/12/15 TOTAL MICROCYSTIS 2 2 2 0 6 0 12 ANABAENA 0 0 0 1 0 6 7 CYCLOTELLA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASTERIONELLA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FRAGILARIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PINNATE DIATOMS 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 DINOBRYON 0 0 14 1 0 0 15 PERIDINIUM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CERATIUM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EUGLENA 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MOUGEOTIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GLOEOCYSTIS 20 0 30 97 79 34 260 Table 2. The number of particles counted with FlowCam® for 2015 (#/ml) by genus and date. Microscope 4/21/14 500 5/7/14 450 6/18/14 400 6/21/14 350 300 7/2/14 250 9/7/14 200 10/27/14 150 AMOUNT OF CELLS 11/10/14 100 50 5/19/15 0 6/3/15 7/2/15 8/12/15 GENERA Figure 2. The total number of cells (except for Microcystis and Anabaena, which were counted as colonies) counted with the microscope by genus and date. FLOWCAM® 120 100 5/19/15 6/3/15 80 6/7/15 60 7/2/15 40 7/14/15 AMOUNT OF CELLS 8/12/15 20 0 GENERA Figure 3. The number of particles counted with FlowCam® for 2015 by genus and date. Microscope totals 1200 1000 800 600 400 AMOUNT OF CELLS 200 0 GENERA Figure 4. The total amount of cells counted manually by genus and date between 21 April and 27 August 2015. FLOWCAM® totals 300 250 200 150 100 AMOUNT OF CELLS 50 0 GENERA Figure 5. Represents total amount of particles counted by genus with FlowCam® between 21 April and 27 August 2015. The most ubiquitous group of algae in Otsego Lake was Gloeocystis (Figure 6). Gloeocystis is a member of the subkingdom Chlorophyta. The value of Gloeocystis as a biological indicator is limited; however, large quantities, much larger than those of Otsego Lake, can cause an unpleasant smell (Guiry and Guiry 2015). Figure 6. Gloeocystis. Scale bar = 12.5 µm. The second most abundant species of algae in Otsego Lake was Mougeotia (Figure 7), a member of charophyceae. Mougeotia is spread throughout the world and is not considered a nuisance (Guiry and Guiry 2015). Figure 7. Mougeotia. Scale bar = 12.5 µm. Dinobryon, a genus of Chrysophyceae (golden-browns), was also found frequently (Figure 8). Dinobryon is dependent upon oligotrophic conditions making it an excellent biological indicator. Thus the frequency of Dinobryon suggested a more oligotrophic lake (Baker 2012). Figure 8. Dinobryon. Scale bar = 12.5 µm. The most diverse group in Otsego Lake and all fresh water is Bacillariophyceae, commonly known as diatoms.